User talk:BlackSmith
Welcome Hi, welcome to League of Legends Wiki! Thanks for . If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia. Happy editing, WikiaBot (help forum | blog) Minor Edits Hey there. I just did my best to answer your question on the Gold Efficiency talk page, if you haven't seen it yet. I also wanted to mention that a minor edit is only something that doesn't change the meaning of a page in any way. (For example, correcting a spelling error.) Any edit that does change the meaning of something, however small, is NOT a minor edit. Thought I'd mention this since I see you've been marking pretty much all of your edits as minor. The Manual of Style has some other useful info like this in it, although there's a lot that's not in there as well. Happy editing! Knives182 (talk) 00:04, December 3, 2013 (UTC) Yes I know, minor edits are "... typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content.". You might point out where I have changed somethings meaning, a example, and I go flag it as a non-minor edit. Otherwise your comment has little weight as, frankly, I don't have idea what you are talking about. MoS has lot of useful information, but its title capitalization needs revaluation. Capital Community College might be great school but its guide for capitalization is something unheard in academic, wiki or real world. Then again, that is talk for a different page. BlackSmith (talk) 12:21, December 3, 2013 (UTC) : Any time you change a number, you change meaning. So all the changes you're making to gold value sections are not minor edits. Speaking of which, as you should have seen on the Gold efficiency page by now, we calculate stats' gold values based on basic items that provide only that stat, w/ 3 exceptions that were discussed & decided upon by the community. : Notice that % movement speed is not among those. If you want to make a case for a way % movement speed could be valued, create a forum topic so the community can weigh in. The same goes for your issues w/ capitalization. Changes to pages w/out such discussion will be reverted, & if you continue to make these changes, a moderator will be forced to step in. : This is why your edits to the Avarice Blade page will continue to be removed. You are calculating gold value differently from every other page on this wiki: sell value has nothing to do w/ these calculations. Again, please see the Gold efficiency page if you need clarification on how this is done here. You are also taking up a great deal of page space presenting gold value in multiple, redundant ways, when only one—the way used on virtually every other page—is necessary. If you want to propose a new method of calculation or presentation, I again direct you to the forums. : Your passion is a good thing, but please understand that the way you think things should be done is not necessarily the way others think they should be done. Then again, maybe it is! But until that's determined through community discussion, it's inappropriate to make the systemic changes you're attempting. Please see me or a moderator before you make any further changes of this nature. Thank you. Knives182 (talk) 23:03, December 3, 2013 (UTC) Why I have this feeling that this community is handful of people that have all done huge amounts of edits and consider the wiki 'theirs'. You can direct me to this community or as you have noticed that there is a way to calculate the value of MS%, you can present it yourself. Instead you keep attacking me and not improving the wiki. Sell value has lot to do with items that generate money. Players are interested when a item has made made more money than it has costed i.o. when it starts to be profitable to carry one around. Again, you could have separated the section for a new subsection (called probably remarkably same as the current 'Cost Analyse' as that is what it is) but instead you keep reverting other peoples work substituting it with less accurate and less understandable format. OFC the G/10 calculations are not 'standard format' as they are unique aspects for four items. At the present format the Cost Analyse section is quite useless as it does not even try to take account the value of more advanced items. Side of the previous examples it does not even try to give value for SS passives. Then again, this is OT and belongs to the Talk:Gold_efficiency. If sense you have made up your mind already with your constant nullifying of my work so I will seek a moderator. BlackSmith (talk) 16:11, December 4, 2013 (UTC) Item pages I actually wanted to say a lot, but apparently someone has already beaten me to it. Oh well. Anyways, as Knives182 stated, I love that you are helping around the wiki, but if there is large tend on how we format or write things (especially if it's an obvious leaving out or adding in), I suggest you ask a mod or create a forum before making a lot of changes. Must things done on this wiki are done for a given reason. If you feel strongly about someone, you can come on the chat as well and try to talk to someone, or write on someone's talk page, like mine since I tend to overlook most of the item pages. Now, I'll gladly explain to why we do not use % movement speed within the cost analyze section. The reason is because of two main reasons. :1) Gold values does not equal a stat's value of effectiveness. I attempt to illustrate this better, but a few people such as yourself believe that by finding the effectiveness, you can rightfully guess the gold value, and I would like to tell you, that's wrong. Gold value has nothing to do with effectiveness. No matter how effective or ineffective an item is, gold value has a set amount and it's just based on how much gold is required to buy it. Think of it as real life. If you could buy 1 apple for $1, or you could buy a bundle of 5 apples for $4. The bundle is clearly more cost efficient, but this has no direct correlation with how tasty or good the apples are. Maybe the single apple is a lot better than the bundle, but that's not cost efficiency is about. :2) There is no base value. Fairly simple enough. Also, we avoid using second tier items that makes the gold value seems extremely low (such as armor pen for example). We all know people would love getting more MS if they could, and having it price so low really lies to a reader as most people values it really high. Well, that's about it. I would talk about gold income items, but Knives182 did a good job on that. Anyways, if you have a question or want to talk about it, you can send me message on my talk page and I'll gladly reply as soon as possible. ClariS (talk) 23:42, December 3, 2013 (UTC) : So adding stuff to calculations that are incorrect or completing them as they are not throughout needs to go trough a board of shamans? Great, that really makes editing and updating this wiki easy and light. Jay... # You need to do better job because I didn't get you. I don't understand the whole GE calculations as I have pointed out in the T:Ge] every item in the game is 'cost efficient' by the value calculations in the GE page that use the basic items as reference points. Every item that has a recipe is more 'sweeter' than any basic one. With the present format, not being throughout and repeating the same things already said in the page, I see the section nothing more than a spam. It tries only partially give valuation for the items effectiveness as it does not try to calculate all aspects and it repeats things that are said 5cm away plus the same numbers and calculations are repeated in the GE page. To me, if people want to see the numbers and (incomplete) calculations, they could see the GE page and keep the item pages for the items. # I take you are talking about base value of movement speed and I fail to see how slowest champion movement speed could not be used as base for calculation. Actually, Knives182 didn't do much of good work expect reverting my work. --BlackSmith (talk) 17:04, December 4, 2013 (UTC) Knives182 did something? I was only saying that I love that you want to help around this wiki. I was not aiming that on him, but rather you. I been away from this site for some time, so I actually do need to recheck what has been happening to most of the item pages. Anyways, to our discussion. "So adding stuff to calculations that are incorrect or completing them as they are not throughout needs to go trough a board of shamans? Great, that really makes editing and updating this wiki easy and light. Jay..." :If that's how you see it, I'm sorry. We need to improve this. But no, of course you don't. Improvements are always needed and always welcome. If you write something that most of the mods like, you won't hear anything bad from us at all, in fact, we might start just adding it in, but if you do something that some of us disagree, that's when we actually intervene, as in, this case for example. But generally, the larger the scale of changing is done (such as structure and format), the more likely it should be told to us mods so we know what is happening and not assuming an idiot is messing with the site. "You need to do better job because I didn't get you. I don't understand the whole GE calculations as I have pointed out in the T:Ge] every item in the game is 'cost efficient' by the value calculations in the GE page that use the basic items as reference points. Every item that has a recipe is more 'sweeter' than any basic one. With the present format, not being throughout and repeating the same things already said in the page, I see the section nothing more than a spam. It tries only partially give valuation for the items effectiveness as it does not try to calculate all aspects and it repeats things that are said 5cm away plus the same numbers and calculations are repeated in the GE page. To me, if people want to see the numbers and (incomplete) calculations, they could see the GE page and keep the item pages for the items." : We don't give values to certain stats and passive because they are disputable. What grounds can we use that proves that (MS%) certain stats are wroth X amount. We have a stander and we try to stick to it. If the stat can't fit the stander, we can't really use it because it will be disputed a lot. As we wiki, our main job is to provide fact and archive information. If it's not fact, we can't really let it be there. (hence, many of the mods actually have an issue with the trivial & strategy stuff but we keep those because a lot of the players like to have it) :You may see it as spam, but before I started adding those section, many of the item pages were empty. They just stated their stats, effect, recipe, and a few tips. Generally, the list of items covered more spaced then the item itself, therefore, I figured adding these section wouldn't hamper with the pages too much. If they are like spam to you, I must ask, how much does it hamper your ability to look at the information within that page? :Small nitpick but, gold efficiency has nothing to do with effectiveness. I do everything I can erase any connection with it. If anyone puts on anything that implies how effective it is or says it, I delete it (when I spot it). Hence, even though you don't mean it, I get kind of annoyed by it. :I mentioned this is the Talk:Gold efficiency already, but why not say it here again. You can't really expect people to go find a page that they don't know exist. If those links were never there, in about a few months, most causal viewers of the site wouldn't even know about gold efficiency page. And secondly, yes, the stats are a few cm apart, but we need it so people can actually see why it value at it's piece and where it splits, instead of seeing, "hey look, total value is 2668, but I don't really care about health regen so what am I really getting without it?" Now, on to the Avarice Blade. I have to agree with Knives182 with his revert. # I would have just simply deleted the entire section based off of the "Viability" header. I will not allow something with that name to exist within the gold value section. # You are assuming that the player is getting perfect CS, which I can say, that probably won't happen consistent enough (even at highest level of play). It's fine saying "Max potential is X amount within a minute", but don't formulate an equation that depends on flawless play from the user. People aren't machines. They won't get perfect CS. Even then, they might get forced out by the enemy. # You can toss the total cost - sell value + passive income effects tipbit in the note section. It more or less belong there as, many people don't buy this item with the intent to actually sell the thing, but rather upgrade it. Anyways, anymore question? Ask away. I'll try to answer the best I can. ClariS (talk) 02:35, December 5, 2013 (UTC) RE: Knives182 nullifying my work on G/10 items I looked at the four pages that Knives182 have been reverting your work ( , , , & ) and I do not see any issues with what he changed at the time. Your selling profit points have the issue of assuming the most optimize situation. It's only useful if the player gets everything perfect within those 3 minutes and 4 seconds without one single hick-up or delay. Beyond that, it doesn't have much use afterwards. And also, the whole selling act is an iffy thing to add because most players rarely sell an item unless in two situations, 1) they screwed up and brought the wrong item, and 2) the game has become extremely late where gold really doesn't matter and everyone is just trying to get the strongest items possible. I know that people do indeed buy gold generating items just for their effect and never upgrade them for anything, but unless the game goes very late... or that champion just got extremely fed really fast, the whole selling aspect just usually never come into play when it matters. But anyways, the point is, Knivies182 deletion of this is fine in my view. Now, the somehow optimized but yet least effective way to make use of the passive (killing the lesser valued minions) seems odd for me. From my point of view, I question how many people would care for that section? It still demands that you use the passive as much as possible without letting a single second go by with max stacks, but yet informing them in a bad case of not attempting to make the most out of it. People strive to be better but this part is only useful for someone who is trying to be mediocre on purpose. Killing a few caster minion is one thing, but constantly doing that is another. So once again, I don't see an issue with Knivies182 removing it. After those two removal, the whole optimized cased don't have much ground have it's own section. To be frank, I would have done almost the same thing as Knivies182. The only real difference I would have done is put in a small tipbit that this item actually doesn't generate any gold for the user, only for a nearby ally. So here's my final remarks. I love that you want to be so informative for the readers out there and giving them all these different numbers, but I ask that you look at how actual helpful these pieces of information are first. More than half the information you place is heavy on the theorycrafting. As a wiki, we can't be inserting too much theories as we have to be providing information that is fact. We have to present it as a manner that presents itself as fact. Theoretical stuff is nice to know sometimes, but they are only really useful for those who is trying to theorycraft. ClariS (talk) 18:35, December 7, 2013 (UTC)